Issues, Etc. — Issues Facing Confessional Lutheranism Today

July 15th, 2013 Post by

As mentioned in a comment on BJS, President Harrison was recently on Issues, Etc., and spoke on various issues that are impacting our synod and will come up at the convention starting this Saturday. It may be worthwhile for pastors, laity, and especially delegates to listen to this program.

 

Right-click here to save MP3

This podcast is taken from Issues, Etc. from 7/12/2013.


Categories: 2013Convention Tags:




Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. Robert
    July 15th, 2013 at 12:43 | #1

    I appreciate the fact that President Harrison mentioned natural law in the latter part of this program.

    The church would benefit, however, from a broader church discussion of how and why natural law has been rejected or reduced to instinct, even within the LCMS.

  2. Martin R. Noland
    July 15th, 2013 at 14:07 | #2

    Dear BJS Bloggers,

    I highly recommend you listen to Pastor Harrison’s interview linked above, coming to you via the talents and good graces of “Issues, etc.”

    It is 30 minutes worth your time and effort to hear what is going on, from the top man in the LCMS. As usual, Todd asks hard-hitting questions right to the point.

    Here are the topics covered, just about all of which will be addressed by some resolution at the upcoming LCMS convention:

    1) LCMS and Global Lutherans, e.g., EECMY
    2) ELCA
    3) C.R.M. pastors
    4) Congregations who depose church-workers unjustly
    5) Visitation by DPs and Circuit Counselors
    6) S.M.P. pastors and their proper role in the synod
    7) Role of women in the church and family
    8) Perennial LCMS issues: altar fellowship, church growth, and a generation of pastors who were not taught Lutheran doctrine properly
    9) Gay agenda, the recent DOMA decision of the Supreme Court, and the challenge this presents to our church.

    Thanks very much to Pastor Todd Wilken and Mr. Jeff Schwarz for preparing this interview, for President Harrison for agreeing to it and speaking freely, and to Mr. Norm Fisher for finding more “Great Stuff”–what I need, when I need it.

    Hope to see some of you at the convention!

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  3. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 15th, 2013 at 17:55 | #3

    @ #2

    “As usual, Todd asks hard-hitting questions right to the point.”

    Sometimes Todd asks “hard-hitting questions,” sometimes he doesn’t. It is a matter of perspective. This is, however, one of the better interviews on Todd’s part in asking “hard-hitting questions” of Matt Harrison.

    In the interview, President Harrison says: “I’ve been criticized a lot by people who think the church shouldn’t be involved in this [“9) Gay agenda, the recent DOMA decision of the Supreme Court, and the challenge this presents to our church.”]. ‘What are you doing? You’re trying to save the culture.’ Well, no. I don’t believe it’s the church’s job to save the culture. The church will never do that. The church should always be — and will always be — at odds with the culture.”

    Listening to Harrison say the words “Well, no. I don’t…”, one will note the condescending and dismissive tone of the president with those who disagree with his policies — with those who “criticize” him. He has done this on other occasions, too. This is not a good character trait in a leader — especially a church leader. And the president’s dismissive style does not render invalid the criticism of the other party or parties. A gracious approach is called for — a “Life Together” approach.

  4. Rev. JA Roemke
    July 15th, 2013 at 18:24 | #4

    Would you give the man a break?? For crying out loud, everyone wants a “regular joe” until it turns out they have one and one that does what a “regular joe” does from time to time, what you and I do from time to time, that is, get a bit frustrated with people’s incessant criticism. Instead of beating the poor man up, try using some of that good ol’ 8th Commandment, best construction stuff everybody is always turning to. Life Together is a two-way street, one that requires understanding and forgiveness and love on BOTH sides, not just from the prez down.

  5. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 15th, 2013 at 19:33 | #5

    “The buck stops here.”
    “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”

    U. S. President Harry S Truman

    If any LCMS president in recent decades truly received “incessant criticism,” it was the late J. A. O. Preus II, not Matthew C. Harrison.

    President Harrison chose to stand for election to the office he holds — twice. He sought the position. With that office comes a heavy responsibility and the need for a “thick skin.”

    As President Harrison himself indicated in the interview with Todd, he is open to receiving some criticism.

  6. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 15th, 2013 at 20:37 | #6

    @ #4 “…people’s incessant criticism.”

    My sister was married in 1973. I remember that some folks went over to the church and carried around placards and picketed outside the church during her wedding ceremony.

    J. A. O. Preus III
    Son of Jack Preus
    “Life and Times of Jacob Preus — Warrior of God, Man of Peace”
    LCMS, 1995

    A couple of times we got some threatening phone calls like they were going to come and burn our house down.

    Mary Churchill
    Daughter of Jack Preus
    “Life and Times of Jacob Preus — Warrior of God, Man of Peace”
    LCMS, 1995

    I remember one particularly difficult day during the time of the conflict. Somebody had come to our house and burned with chemicals an obscene word in our lawn. They had spelled out in large letters an obscene word. It burned the grass and made it die. It lasted a while. I remember vividly how this event seemed to really disturb him. And he wasn’t angry as much as sad.

    J. A. O. Preus III
    Son of Jack Preus
    “Life and Times of Jacob Preus — Warrior of God, Man of Peace”
    LCMS, 1995

  7. Nicholas
    July 15th, 2013 at 21:38 | #7

    @Rev. JA Roemke #4

    “LC-MS Quotes” is a pietist (a fact, not an insult). On a recent thread here he was arguing against dancing and listening to rock music.

  8. Nicholas
    July 15th, 2013 at 21:42 | #8

    @“LC-MS Quotes” #3

    I desire no “Life Together” with the Daystar apostates.

  9. jb
    July 15th, 2013 at 22:25 | #9

    “LC-MS Quotes”

    What exactly is your point!?

    Sorry for the exclamation with the ? – but you are what is wrong in Synod, and you prove the matter by your very own words.

    In all Christian charity, you are little but a harpy.

    Your recalling JAO is just anecdotal. JAO did not walk on water. Quoting the rabid premillennialist Harry Truman (the only man to unleash nuclear weaponry officially upon mankind and with no justification whatsoever) – was, how can I say it – absolutely hilarious. Harry Truman was a joke. My mother worked for him. What she called him I cannot repeat, and Mom almost never said such things, except about Truman.

    Matt understands what has to be done. Missouri is a big ship, big ships do not turn on a dime.

    Matt is a pastor, as was Al Barry. Neither Al nor Matt had/has an “agenda.” Perhaps you should travel to St. Loo and get an appointment time with Matt, and deal with your issues.

    What you write here is tiresome and very much unlike a Christian. You have a bitch against Pastor President Harrison? I know the man well enough to say he will invite you into his office without qualification. You got the nads to ask him? He’ll listen. I am certain you won’t ask.

    You will discover how much the man understands the Gospel. I challenge you directly.

    Call President Harrison and ask the man if you can talk with him. He will say yes, and he will settle you and put your your false insinuations to rest.

    The Gospel of Jesus rules. Period.

  10. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 15th, 2013 at 22:57 | #10

    @ #7 “LC-MS Quotes” is a pietist (a fact, not an insult).

    Name calling and discussion stopper attempts do not address what has been raised above. “A fact?” So you say.

    What is your definition of a pietist? Is it a term of convenience? Is the term being used as a catch-all to describe someone who criticizes President Harrison’s performance in office or any other subject on BJS?

    What is your definition of piety?

  11. Carl Vehse
    July 16th, 2013 at 00:10 | #11

    @jb #9 : “Harry Truman (the only man to unleash nuclear weaponry officially upon mankind and with no justification whatsoever.”

    His order to use the atomic bombs against Japan was one of the few correct decisions President Truman made and was completely justified morally and militarily in doing so.

    “We have spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history — and won,” President Harry Truman, [The New York Times, Tuesday, August 7, 1945, p. 1]

    “Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We will continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan’s power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us.” [President Harry Truman, Radio Report to the American People on the Potsdam Conference, August 9, 1945]

    “During a meeting at the White House in October 1945, [Robert] Oppenheimer tried to convey his deep moral crisis. ‘Mr. President, I have blood on my hands,’ he remarked. ‘Never mind,’ Truman replied, ‘it’ll all come out in the wash.’ (According to some accounts he offered Oppenheimer a hankerchief.) ‘Don’t you bring that crybaby in here again,’ Truman later told an aide. ‘After all, all he did was make the bomb. I’m the guy who fired it off.’”[Excerpted from The Bomb: A Life (Gerard J. DeGroot, Harvard University Press, 2004, p. 111)]

    “The atom bomb was no ‘great decision’… It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness.” – Harry S. Truman, at a Columbia University Seminar, April 28, 1959, New York City. [As quoted in The Buck Stops Here: The 28 Toughest Presidential Decisions and How They Changed History, Thomas J. Craughwell, Edwin Kiester Jr., Quarry Books, 2010, p. 178.]

  12. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 06:45 | #12

    @Carl Vehse #11

    Bombing civilian targets, whether in Japan or Germany, was never morally justified.

  13. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 06:48 | #13

    @jb #9

    Amen!

  14. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 07:26 | #14

    @“LC-MS Quotes” #3

    After listening to the podcast again, it is clear that there was no arrogant or dismissive tone in Pr. Harrison’s voice. This seems to be not just an error but intentional dishonesty on your part.

    How odd that on one thread you are condemning all dancing and rock music, and on this thread you sound like Matthew Becker.

  15. helen
    July 16th, 2013 at 07:26 | #15

    @Nicholas #12
    Bombing civilian targets, whether in Japan or Germany, was never morally justified.

    So we’ll apologize, the day after Japan apologizes for the Bataan death march, the rape of Nanking, and the building of the Burma railway by slave labor. (That was civilian as well as military slave labor.) I knew a man who survived the Burma railway so I am not quoting bowdlerized history books, 60’s peaceniks (who carried Satan’s emblem) or movie scripts. The (Dutch civilian) woman that man later married spent her war in a Japanese camp in Indonesia which was no picnic either.

    Not every country makes your neat distinctions between “civilian” and “military”. Many of the men we have overseas right now are National Guard or reserves, i.e., civilians, and they are being blown up regularly, by “civilians”.

    But aren’t we just a little off topic here!?

  16. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 07:37 | #16

    @helen #15

    I was simply answering Carl Vehse. Because it is off topic, I kept my response short.

    But the Japanese and German state and military atrocities and genocides against civilians cannot be used as a moral justification for the *intentional* Allied killing of Japanese or German *civilians* by aerial bombardment or nuclear weapons.

  17. Carl Vehse
    July 16th, 2013 at 07:40 | #17

    @Nicholas #12 : “Bombing civilian targets, whether in Japan or Germany, was never morally justified.”

    Contrary to your opinion, Hiroshima and Nagasaki was military targets. Civilians working in military sites and in military areas were warned to leave. If civilians specifically were to be targeted, the atomic bomb could have been dropped in a different location for a much higher death rate.

    And if the United States had developed the atomic bomb six months earlier, it is possible that the German military target, Dresden, would have been destroyed in a nuclear blast rather that destroyed by firebombs. Again, in war, that would have been completely and morally justified. In fact if Truman were to have decided against using the bomb, he would have been a traitor to the United States.

  18. Carl Vehse
    July 16th, 2013 at 07:48 | #18

    @helen #15 : “But aren’t we just a little off topic here!?”

    Perhaps not that much. Since President Harrison mentioned natural law (and it’s being perverted or ignored), correcting erroneous notions opposing the use of nuclear weapons in war under natural law seems relevant (there is no divinely revealed command against using such weapons).

  19. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 07:56 | #19

    Since Dresden has been mentioned, I will simply leave this here in response: http://bible-researcher.com/dresden/dresden.html

    Everything said there applies equally to Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

    A city can contain military targets, but an entire city does not itself constitute a military target.

    We can acknowledge what happened in history without having to defend all of it. And remember that we are Christians first and political conservatives/American patriots second.

    The side that won the war (the Allies) was still the right side.

  20. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 08:07 | #20

    Carl Vehse :@helen #15 : “But aren’t we just a little off topic here!?”
    Perhaps not that much. Since President Harrison mentioned natural law (and it’s being perverted or ignored), correcting erroneous notions opposing the use of nuclear weapons in war under natural law seems relevant (there is no divinely revealed command against using such weapons).

    My point was against the intentional killing of civilians, which is against natural law and Christian just war theory.

    Additionally, any argument used to defend the intentional Allied killing of civilians could be used by the Axis to defend their actions. For example, the Japanese atrocities in China were committed with the hope of attaining a quick surrender from the Chinese (it had the opposite effect).

    The mass fire bombing of German and Japanese cities also did not help to end the war sooner (though it would be no more morally justified if it did). The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did help to end the war sooner, but this “military justification” is divorced from any sense of Christian morality.

  21. Carl Vehse
    July 16th, 2013 at 08:13 | #21

    Here is a more reliable book about Dresden: Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 by Frederick Taylor (HarperCollins, 2004). The attack on Dresden was justified.

    Sir Arthur Harris was a WWII hero and used by Winston Churchill, and then ignored after the war when postwar politics became more important. U.S. General Curtis LeMay learned the tactics of Harris, improved them, and used them against Japan.

    We should acknowledge and defend the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. in WWII.

  22. Carl Vehse
    July 16th, 2013 at 08:29 | #22

    @Nicholas #20 : My point was against the intentional killing of civilians, which is against natural law and Christian just war theory.

    The U.S. and Allied forces were justified, under natural law and in a Christian understanding of war, to destroy military targets and war production facilities even when civilians working in those areas are likely to be killed or injured.

    Post-WWII morning quarterbacking on whether the war would have ended at the same time if the bombings had not occurred is idle speculation.

  23. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 16th, 2013 at 08:33 | #23

    @ #9

    “What exactly is your point!?” An observation of the tone of “the top man in the LCMS” (#2) when referencing those who may disagree with his policies. How does that make someone “what is wrong in Synod?”

    “JAO did not walk on water.” Correct. He did not. Neither does Matthew C. Harrison. J. A. O. Preus is an example of a synod president who truly endured “people’s incessant criticism” (#4). Lawrence R. Rast Jr. has written in CTQ, Volume 74, Number 1-2, January/April 2010, p. 72: “For a man whose experience was as varied as J. A. O. Preus’s, one should not expect one descriptor to capture the entire man. The web of each of our lives is far messier than that. Still, as God’s people, God accomplishes his will through inconsistent people like you and me — and J. A. O. Preus” (J. A. O. Preus: Theologian, Churchman, or Both?). This description also applies to the current synod president or anyone.

    “Quoting the rabid premillennialist Harry Truman…” President Truman is not the issue. He happens to be the source of two commonly used expressions in American society. The average American using the two expressions may not know where they came from any more than they know the biblical origin of “the handwriting on the wall” — but they use the expressions anyway. President Truman is not the issue.

    “Matt understands what has to be done. Missouri is a big ship, big ships do not turn on a dime.

    Matt is a pastor, as was Al Barry. Neither Al nor Matt had/has an “agenda.” Perhaps you should travel to St. Loo and get an appointment time with Matt, and deal with your issues.” How is any of this relevant?

    “What you write here is tiresome and very much unlike a Christian. You have a bitch against Pastor President Harrison? I know the man well enough to say he will invite you into his office without qualification. You got the nads to ask him? He’ll listen. I am certain you won’t ask.

    You will discover how much the man understands the Gospel. I challenge you directly.

    Call President Harrison and ask the man if you can talk with him. He will say yes, and he will settle you and put your your false insinuations to rest.

    The Gospel of Jesus rules. Period.” Is this your version of “harpy?” Is this your version of making ” insinuations?” Does President Harrison’s statement from his February 2013 video about Newtown apply to you in this case: “Watch your words?”

    “What you write here is tiresome and very much unlike a Christian.” How is it unlike a Christian? You have used language that could be considered “unlike a Christian” to make your point. But how can you or anyone say anything is “unlike a Christian?” Would that not take us into the realm of “pietism,: as #7 and others have asserted? Apparently, on BJS, anything that could touch on the justified sinner in Christ living the Christian life may be open to being termed “pietism.” If that is correct, then anything else addressed on BJS having to do with morality and whatever the Bible may have to say about how a believer lives life should not be addressed. The Bible should not be appealed to as a source of information and instruction. For example, why has BJS censored some of the original “bad language” used in comments in the past? One person’s view of language as “bad” may be another person’s common, everyday vocabulary. Is that a “pietistic” approach?

    “Call President Harrison and ask the man if you can talk with him. He will say yes, and he will settle you and put your your false insinuations to rest. The Gospel of Jesus rules. Period.” Please note the loving, Gospel oriented tone of your statement.

  24. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 16th, 2013 at 09:00 | #24

    @ #14

    “After listening to the podcast again…” Fair enough. That is your take on the podcast. Quotes takes a different one.

    “How odd that on one thread you are condemning all dancing and rock music, and on this thread you sound like Matthew Becker.” When did that take place. Your own words apply to the way you characterize that previous thread: “This seems to be not just an error but intentional dishonesty on your part.”

    The attempt with the quotations on rock music was to point out the obvious lyrical concerns. At least, they have tended to be obvious to many Christians over the years. On BJS, any concern expressed about the matter of rock music, tends to be met with the charge of “pietism.” Why? Is it because it is so entrenched in the lifestyles of many Christians that they cannot bring themselves to at least re-consider the matter? You tell me.

    Another issue addressed on BJS comes to mind with regard to “pietism.” Contraception on-demand. Authors like Mark A. Preus have addressed concern over the practice of contraception within Christian marriages. Others have disagreed with him. Is Preus being a “pietist” by broaching a matter that has to do with choices in how one lives their life?

    A 1977 lecture by Dean O. Wenthe was recently quoted. Wenthe called child day care “paganism.” Did he make a “pietistic” statement about those who choose to use day care for their children?

    Informed Christian consciences will make daily decisions about how to live life as a forgiven sinners; the Third Use of the Law serves as the guide. This may include rock music or any other topic. Why is the mention of the subject termed “pietism?”

  25. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 09:43 | #25

    @“LC-MS Quotes” #24

    Perhaps I have been guilty of not putting the best construction on your comments, and if so I apologize. If your primary concern with rock music is lyrical, note that I expressed the same concern on that thread: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=31194&cpage=1#comments

    Perhaps many of us were talking past each other on that thread. But I object to the legalism of condemning a particular *style* of music and labeling it as sinful (as fundamentalist Baptists do). I said all that I had to say on the matter on that thread, and so I was wrong to bring it up again here.

    I stand by my rejection of your comments on Pr. Harrison, which do mirror what the LCMS liberals have been writing against him for some time: http://matthewlbecker.blogspot.com/2013/02/harrisons-latest-offenses.html

  26. Nicholas
  27. Nicholas
  28. Nicholas
  29. July 16th, 2013 at 10:20 | #29

    In lighter applicable news, Becker will stop pretending to be a Lutheran Christian pastor at the end of this summer and retreat from his siege of my neighboring parish, Immanuel in Michigan City. Lord willing, his treachery of lurching into a grieving congregation in the event of the tragic death of their shepherd will never be repeated. Praise God!

  30. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 16th, 2013 at 10:29 | #30

    @ #29 “Lord willing, his treachery of lurching into a grieving congregation in the event of the tragic death of their shepherd will never be repeated. Praise God!”

    This would need to be addressed to the appropriate district president. Daniel P. May?

  31. quasicelsus
    July 16th, 2013 at 10:30 | #31

    @Jason Harris #29

    You’re free to tell him this personally. Nicholas provided his blog, just above your post.

    I’m looking forward to seeing it on the site. I can copy/paste, if you’d prefer.

  32. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 10:42 | #32

    @“LC-MS Quotes” #30

    Becker’s actual DP is Paul Linnemann. Linnemann has been fully informed of all of Becker’s heresies, including Becker’s promotion of rank liberalism (Schweitzer) and homosexuality (Queer Edward II): http://christiannewsmo.blogspot.com/2011/03/evolution-tolerated-in-concordia.html

    Linnemann continues to protect Becker. This makes Linnemann as Biblically deserving of excommunication as Becker, Wyneken, etc.

    In the meantime, Linnemann has been trying to make the LCMS into a more tolerable environment for his fellow liberals like Becker: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=30411

  33. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 16th, 2013 at 10:53 | #33

    @ #32

    Understood. Thank you.

    Since Michigan City is in the LCMS Indiana District, would not DP May have something to do with determining what ordained man serves as the vacancy pastor of Immanuel or is this strictly a matter for the parish to decide on her own?

  34. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 10:56 | #34
  35. July 16th, 2013 at 11:17 | #35

    To avoid confusion, my news comes both from Matt’s blog and from the Indiana District newsletter. It’s no secret or scandal or occasion for hand-wringing. It’s simply news, good news.

  36. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 11:18 | #36

    Becker makes his pro-homosexual position more clear further down that comment thread: http://gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com/2010/12/useful-discussion.html?showComment=1292367361318#c2315054259731336023

    Matthew Becker wrote:

    “Paul M.,
    For the final time, the content of the letter of the ELCA teaching theologians reflects my basic view toward homosexuality. I would rephrase the letter in parts to read as follows:

    • I too affirm the authority of the Scriptures, but the seven biblical texts that are frequently cited on the issue of homosexuality are not directly pertinent to the 21st-century discussion because some of them condemn specifically homosexual rape, deal with questions of “clean and unclean” that are not normative in the Christian community, do not take into account issues like “sexual orientation,” and presuppose that all would agree with a particular interpretation of what “nature” teaches.
    • Both heterosexual and homosexual persons are expected to express sexual intimacy within publicly accountable, lifelong, and monogamous relationships. This has long been the expectation for heterosexual couples, and therefore is an appropriate expectation for homosexual couples as well.
    • I recognize that the unity of the church is based on one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, and that within this unity, faithful members may disagree on individual items of theology and Christian ethics.

    Paul, I’ve answered your questions. So far, you haven’t answered a single one of the questions I’ve put toward your position. What is your view toward the apostolic Scriptures that give commands about slavery, eating food offered to idols, eating blood, women wearing a head covering, honoring the emperor, women saving themselves through childbearing, women wearing expensive jewelry? And what about Jesus’ command not to call anyone “father” save our Father in heaven?

    Do you agree with AC 28 and Apol 28, namely, that contemporary Christians may legitimately set aside apostolic commands if they have become outdated and are no longer applicable in one’s cultural setting?

    Matthew Becker” [END OF QUOTE]

    That this man remains on the clergy roster of the LCMS (along with Karl Wyneken, who advocates the same thing) is a shame on the entire LCMS.

  37. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 16th, 2013 at 11:22 | #37

    In the interview, President Harrison said he is not a “bull in a china shop” when it comes to the exercise of his office. #9 says “Matt understands what has to be done. Missouri is a big ship, big ships do not turn on a dime.”

    At what point does President Harrison take action against Dr. Matthew Becker? Why did he take some action in the Newtown matter but not against Becker?

    In Christian News Herman Otten has regularly asked how many more years and decades have to go by before appropriate action is taken in a case like Becker.

    How does the matter of Becker relate to #2’s “a generation of pastors who were not taught Lutheran doctrine properly?”

    Is a president addressing error in a synod the same as a pastor addressing error in the local congregation?

  38. Jason
    July 16th, 2013 at 11:35 | #38

    @Jason Harris #29

    About time. I’m shocked he ever snuck in to begin with.

  39. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 12:01 | #39

    If the cancer (Becker, Wyneken, Domsch, Linnemann, etc.) is not cut out of our Synod, it will continue to grow back again and again. I encourage everyone to listen to Pr. Noland’s recent interview on Issues, etc. which immediately preceded Pr. Harrison’s: http://issuesetc.org/2013/07/12/1-opponents-of-confessional-lutheranism-dr-martin-noland-71213/

  40. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 16th, 2013 at 12:04 | #40

    @ #37 “That this man remains on the clergy roster of the LCMS (along with Karl Wyneken, who advocates the same thing) is a shame on the entire LCMS.”

    Then why has not “the top man in the LCMS” (#2) taken the appropriate action against a public teacher in the Missouri Synod who holds to false doctrine?

    “Matt understands what has to be done. Missouri is a big ship, big ships do not turn on a dime.” (#9)

    How long does it take?

    “Matt is a pastor, as was Al Barry. Neither Al nor Matt had/has an ‘agenda.'” (#9)

    When does Pastor Harrison bring the sad but Scriptural news to Dr. Becker that he can no longer serve as an ordained minister in the Missouri Synod?

    When does Pastor Harrison, like Synod President Preus before him, address the matter of District Presidents who refuse to discipline men like Dr. Becker?

    #2 says “Thanks very much to Pastor Todd Wilken and Mr. Jeff Schwarz for preparing this interview, for President Harrison for agreeing to it and speaking freely”

    In addition to “speaking,” President Harrison needs to be taking disciplinary action where appropriate. The President writes in the July-August 2013 Lutherans Engage the World: “We are living in the period of the greatest shift in the history of modern Lutheranism, and the Missouri Synod has a vital, divine vocation at this very moment. In fact, our worldwide purpose has never been so expansive, and its is growing daily.”

    In closing his piece, President Harrison writes: “In short, it’s just a magnificent moment for us to be exactly who we are — conservative, confessional Lutherans who stand on the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions without reservation.”

    That’s all well and good to write in a publication about “Lutherans engaging the world.” However, when Dr. Becker and others continue to go undisciplined within the Missouri Synod, how serious of a contention is that the Missouri Synod is “conservative, confessional Lutherans who stand on the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions without reservation?”

    #39 says “If the cancer (Becker, Wyneken, Domsch, Linnemann, etc.) is not cut out of our Synod, it will continue to grow back again and again.”

  41. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 12:09 | #41

    @“LC-MS Quotes” #40

    As Carl Vehse will tell you, the LCMS constitutions and bylaws apparently prevent the SP from expelling those apostates. Maybe the SP could remove DP Linnemann from office. But could he excommunicate him from the synod?

    If I were SP, I would cut out the cancer by any means necessary, regardless of the endless bylaws (which are not divinely inspired).

    In any case, President Harrison needs our support in the midst of constant attacks from the enemy.

  42. Nicholas
    July 16th, 2013 at 12:14 | #42

    Issues, etc. reports that Fuller Seminary now sanctions sodomy: http://issuesetc.org/2013/07/15/2-fuller-theological-seminary-sanctions-lgbt-student-group-chris-rosebrough-71513/

    We have that in our own LCMS university system: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=12535

    And our universities like to hire teachers educated at Fuller: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=12600

    And Concordia Portland is also where Becker previously taught, where he required students to read portions of “Queer Edward II” by atheist homosexual activist Derek Jarman (who died of AIDS).

  43. quasicelsus
    July 16th, 2013 at 12:28 | #43

    @Nicholas #42

    Respectfully and humbly requesting that you leave “who died of AIDS” out of the matter. It may be that God smote Derek with AIDS, and that God may rightfully smite a toddler raped in Africa with the disease – and it may simply be that you are reporting a fact that Derek Jarman died of AIDS. I think it distracts from the power of your quotes. If you disagree, I’ll let it go.

  44. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 16th, 2013 at 12:43 | #44

    @ #42

    “As Carl Vehse will tell you, the LCMS constitutions and bylaws apparently prevent the SP from expelling those apostates.” Then what is the point of a synodical president having oversight authority?

    “Maybe the SP could remove DP Linnemann from office. ” More than maybe. Synodical President Preus is an example of this being done in the past with the directive of the Synod in convention to do so if necessary.

    “But could he excommunicate him from the synod?” If the synod is not a church, the local congregation where men like Becker hold membership would need to carry out an excommunication. And if the congregation will not, that opens up another internal problem in the Missouri Synod that betrays the lack of unity and walking together in “Witness – Mercy – Life Together.”

    “If I were SP, I would cut out the cancer by any means necessary, regardless of the endless bylaws (which are not divinely inspired). In any case, President Harrison needs our support in the midst of constant attacks from the enemy.” Perhaps support for President Harrison can be demonstrated by encouraging him to “cut out the cancer by any means necessary, regardless of the endless bylaws (which are not divinely inspired).” He can take his example of courage from men like Dr. Wallace Schulz or Dr. Hermann Sasse.

    In the interview, President Harrison makes reference to some who criticize him never having led anything. That may be true of some, but not all. What the church needs from President Harrison is courageous leadership that goes beyond the status quo. He can set an example for others on how to lead in a courageous fashion by starting with the matter of men like Dr. Becker. If the Synod were really “conservative, confessional Lutherans who stand on the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions without reservation” as President Harrison writes, then taking action against Becker and others would not be so much about courageous leadership as about “standard operating procedure” in a confessional church body.

    Todd Wilken highly commends the writings of Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY (IE, June 26, 2013). President Harrison and others may benefit from Dr. Mohler’s 2012 book on leadership, The Conviction to Lead; 25 Principles for Leadership That Matter.

  45. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 16th, 2013 at 12:58 | #45

    @ #44

    Correction…In the interview, President Harrison makes reference to a lack of leadership experience on the part of some who criticize him.

  46. Carol Broome
    July 16th, 2013 at 13:01 | #46

    http://www.thedaystarjournal.com/

    To answer your questions about Pastor Harrison’s action wrt Matt Becker, please go to the above link and click on ‘TDJ Editor’s Blog’ on the left hand side.

    Not everything is always public. And I think that that is good.

  47. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 16th, 2013 at 13:15 | #47

    @ #46

    Thank you.

  48. “LC-MS Quotes”
    July 17th, 2013 at 09:12 | #48

    @ #7, #25

    The 1984 movie Footloose has a very catchy soundtrack and a typical Hollywood “youth” theme; the kids are not understood by their bewildered parents, but the elders eventually see the light courtesy of their progressive offspring.

    What sets Footloose apart from other films of this genre is the backhanded respect that it shows religion; even the new kid in town, played by Kevin Bacon, who becomes a sort of clean-cut town rebel, attends church with his mom. And there is a key scene in which the central adult figure, the pastor of the town church, play by John Lithgow, is listening to Bach while writing a sermon. His daughter (Lori Singer) has been campaigning to end the town’s ban on dancing, a stricture initiated and sustained by her father’s tyrannical influence.

    Dad thinks, with plenty of justification, that rock ‘n’ roll is the devil’s music. But he had gone overboard by forbidding dancing via the town council. As it turns out, he went off the deep end because of a terrible tragedy for which he feels responsible. he gets over this by the end of the film, after the rebel quotes a bunch of Bible verses about dancing that the pastor’s daughter finds for him. (Who says the devil can’t quote Scripture?)

    Anyway, the daughter comes in and asks Dad why he doesn’t find his own classical music sinful, and he replies that it uplifts the soul because it is harmonious and brilliantly structured. This music appeals to the spirit, he says, unlike other varieties, which bruise the soul by miring it in animalistic urges. This is basically what Allan Bloom said in his famous passages on the dangers of rock ‘n’ roll in Closing of the American Mind:

    But rock music has one appeal only, a barbaric appeal, to sexual desire — not love, not eros, but sexual desire underdeveloped and untutored. it acknowledges the first emanations of children’s emerging sensuality and addresses them seriously, eliciting them and legitimating them, not as little sprouts that must be carefully tended in order to grow into gorgeous flowers, but as the real thing. Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later.

    Robert H. Knight
    The Age of Consent: The Rise of Relativism and the Corruption of Popular Culture
    Chapter 14 Music: Roll Over, Apollo
    Spence, 2000

    [July 28 — Johann Sebastian Bach, Kantor. Lutheran Service Book]

    [Robert H. Knight (born April 23, 1951), was a draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Wikipedia.]

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.